Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'

Foxnews ^

[MinorityRepublican]

I’ve contended for a while....if you create a FREE virtual public space it should be held to the same free speech standard of a FREE physical public space.

Eventually the Supreme Court needs to get around and do this. And have it become a precedent. Clarence Thomas is 74 now. The clock is ticking....

[BobL]

GOOD - if the government, or Leftists in the government can make yes-boys out of Big Tech, then Big Tech needs to TAUGHT A LESSON.

I’ll leave it to the Pointy-Nosed Libertarians here to explain to us as to why we should only be permitted to hear only ONE SIDE of every argument.

[Jim W N]

Well, when it comes to the federal government, you must study up on the Constitution which is your God-given heritage and the ONLY legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the feds.

As I said, freedom is worth the effort and the fight.

[MinorityRepublican]

1) get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.

Exceptions would be when the companies become big enough (Facebook and Twitter) so that their virtual space is considered to be "public" so free speech cannot be stifled by then.

[Jim W N]

when the companies become big enough (Facebook and Twitter) so that their virtual space is considered to be "public" so free speech cannot be stifled by then.

Sounds like Obama talking.

Couldn't disagree more.

Quit validating unconstitutional fascist government.

[AndyTheBear]

I have some familiarity with the US Constitution, its the specifics of this ruling I do not feel confident rendering a judgement about.

[Jim W N]

Well, depending on how familiar you are with the Constitution its presumptions, structure, text, and Court perversions, all you have to do is ask yourself, where does the Constitution give the feds power to regulate private business (where the issue is not impediments to interstate commerce)?

Again freedom is worth the effort and the fight.

[Vaduz]

Indeed stand by for verbal gymnastics on the word censor.

[Lurker]

“Yeah sure, fighting for freedom and against unconstitutional Court decisions like Gibbons and Wickard is a fool’s errand.”

So, what’s the name of the suit you’re a party to?

Waiting….waiting. …

Yea, that’s what I thought.

L

[AndyTheBear]

I've now read through the bill. I've also read an article highlighting the challenge to the bill.

I am a bit conflicted on the bill's basic goodness as a policy (apart from its validity as a legal matter).

On the negative it is another layer of regulation on businesses and generally I think the force of law is a big hammer that sometimes breaks what it tries to fix. Laws usually have unintended consequences.

On the plus side I think its well written and does address a serious issue that unfortunately needs a big hammer. It does not apply to most social media but only the big ones that have become de facto public market squares of ideas--which is exactly what I have been advocating for a while.

It seems a good balance to the Federal interference that the Democrats are already in full swing applying to social media. The Social Media giants actually have some protection from the political pressure in that they can say: Hey we would love to bury this new story that makes you Democrats look so awful like we did in the 2020 election, but hey that pesky Texas law prevents us...at least in Texas, and its really hard to isolate Texans from the rest of the country etc.

There is also the question of whether the law is valid legally. If the Texas legislature stayed within their lane and all. I am not positive, but I suspect they did. On the other hand for the Federal congress it would be a slam dunk that it was authorized because of the very explicit power granted them by section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

Caveat: I am just a software developer and not a legal professional and do not consider my opinion at all authorities. I would be more interested to hear what trustworthy lawyers would say about the legality of Texas enacting it. For the feds I think its a slam dunk that it must be valid as the 14th Amendment is very clear.

[Elsie]

Now HERE is a new weasel word: freewheeling.

All the news that's fit to print.

[Elsie]

Bingo!

[Elsie]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/All-the-News-Thats-Fit-to-Print

It just depends on what FIT is.

[ConservativeMind]

Big Tech isn't a human, is bound by the Commerce Clause, and deleting someone else’s words has zero to do with the 1st Amendment and everything to do with censorship, which is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

[AndyTheBear]

Few ask the question, that of gov. can force the likes of FB to allow FR and its posters on it, the how can FR zot liberal FB posters from it?

The law will not apply to FreeRepublic but will apply to Facebook and Twitter. One of the criteria is that the platform must have 50 million users in a month. The idea is to apply to social media that operate as a public utility of communication, not places where a subset of the population discuss things.

This makes sense. For example a news paper should not be censored since everybody can make their own news paper. But phone companies should not censor communication between callers because everybody needs to use the phone and the service is a conduit for everybody not a construct of certain people from a certain view.

Suppose in the time before big tech somebody cornered the market on all printing presses and paper and ink so that the y would not allow any newspaper to have the means to print news except the ones that agreed with their narrative? Regulating that kind of monopoly and not regulating actual newspapers makes sense.

[Political Junkie Too]

Suppose in the time before big tech somebody cornered the market on all printing presses and paper and ink so that the y would not allow any newspaper to have the means to print news except the ones that agreed with their narrative?

That's what happened when Big Tech tried to stop rival competitors to Twitter and YouTube by getting the cloud providers to ban them from starting up servers, like they did with Rumble and Gettr.

-PJ

[Elsie]

One of the criteria is that the platform must have 50 million users in a month.

The 'law' could change that figure to be...

[I want the USA back]

That is correct. They don’t have the right. But they will continue to act as the ministry of truth because they are doing what the government is not allowed to do. The government has told them to censor. The government has allowed them to violate first amendment rights. The government is actually doing the censoring, by proxy. The government will not prosecute them.

And so the social media will continue to function as the Stasi, identifying and punishing dissenters, and the first amendment will mean nothing.

[Candor7]

Soon we will have a federal Virus than can shut down any server run by Big Tech, The Chinese are going to give it to Joe Biden,

And then you will have a single source denial of free speech,just like the left wants it.

[Jim W N]

Private business has traditionally been treated the same as private citizens. The Constitution gives the feds NO authority to regulate or interfere with private business except of removal of hindrances to interstate commerce.

Again, there’s no legitimate need for the government to be involved in these social networks. Competition is available and people can use other means of communication.

Let’s quit validating more and more unconstitutional government regulation and intrusion into our lives.

The Right has a terrible history of cheering unconstitutional decisions if it appears to favor their side for the moment not realizing that long-term, any erosion of the Constitution is an erosion of the only legal protection of our freedoms against the tyranny of the feds.

Today they unconstitutionally regulate who we don’t like. Tomorrow, they regulate patriotic sites they don’t like (like stopping FR from zotting who FR doesn’t like for instance).